Widner v. Hunt
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from the Polh District Court. Suit to recover tbe value of certain property claimed by plaintiff, and taken and sold by defendant, as constable, on. :an execution against one Wright. Tbe defendant’s answer •was a general denial of the petition. Tbe plaintiff applied .for a continuance, and filed an affidavit for tbe purpose of .obtaining tbe same. Tbe motion was overruled.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Polh District Court. Suit to recover tbe value of certain property claimed by plaintiff, and taken and sold by defendant, as constable, on. :an execution against one Wright. Tbe defendant’s answer •was a general denial of the petition. Tbe plaintiff applied .for a continuance, and filed an affidavit for tbe purpose of .obtaining tbe same. Tbe motion was overruled. On tbe •next day, tbe application was renewed, and tbe plaintiff was permitted to file a second affidavit, on which tbe motion was based. Tbe cause for continuance set forth in both affidavits, is tbe absence of a…
1Opinion of the CourtStockton, J.
We think there was no error in overruling .the motion for a continuance. Tbe first affidavit d.oes not *357show that any effort had been made to procure the attendance of the witness, nor any excuse for the want of that diligence which the law requires. The second affidavit states, that the affiant had been informed that the witness was in a delicate state of health, and unable to be in attendance at the term of the court. The affidavit .is made by the plaintiff’s attorney, who states that he had 'once before tried the cause, and is as well acquainted with the facts as the plaintiff himself. He…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State v. RorabacherSupreme Court of Iowa · 1865
- Dean v. White & HaightSupreme Court of Iowa · 1857
- Twaites v. BaillySupreme Court of Iowa · 1930
- Childs v. HeatonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1860
- Cheney v. McCollochSupreme Court of Iowa · 1897